Local Government Collaboration

While collaboration in the provision of public services involving two or more levels of government (national, regional, state, and local) is not uncommon, collaborative efforts among local governments or between local governments and nonprofit or private organizations occur more frequently. The number of collaborative agreements probably numbers in the millions. In a State and Local Government Review article a few years ago, David Warm (2011, 60) noted that local government collaboration was becoming “an increasingly pervasive approach to addressing community challenges.” Although some collaborative efforts can be viewed as short-term fixes to service issues, most such arrangements usually remain in place for many years, include complex relationships involving multiple partners and various sectors, and will have long-term outcomes (Warm 2011, 60).

Collaboration can be both formal and informal. Formal agreements can range from mutual aid pacts among neighboring local jurisdictions to assist one another in fighting fires to cooperative arrangements to purchase vehicles and equipment to joint operation of major utilities like sewage treatment plants and solid waste disposal facilities. Informal agreements can take the form of ad hoc meetings, impromptu discussions, and demonstration projects, day-to-day sharing and trading of information about issues of mutual interest that involve services like natural resource preservation, zoning and planning, traffic control, and parks and recreation. And, of course, collaboration minimally involves at least two local jurisdictions and/or nonprofit or private organizations but frequently includes multiple such entities.

While collaborative service provision has always been a popular alternative to in-house delivery, there seems to have been a resurgence of interest in it during the great recession (e.g., see Perlman and Benton 2012; Benton, Aikins, and Miller 2009). In fact, a recent survey of local government officials found that collaboration with other local governments “top[ped] the list of trends taking center stage in 2013” (Reach the Public 2013). Additionally, we have witnessed an expansion in the scope of collaborative efforts to include a number of innovative and creative endeavors that can function similarly (e.g., civic engagement).

Historically, organizations like the International City/County Management Association, National League of Cities, National Association of Counties, “good government” groups, and study commissions have endorsed the utilization of collaboration in service delivery and refer to them as win–win scenarios and opportunities. They point to a number of positive features that collaboration can produce and are as listed below:

helps local governments cut or share costs and offers the opportunity for realizing economies of scale, while maintaining or even possibly improving the level of services provided;

Most of the above-mentioned governmental associations—but also a number of state, regional, university, and private/nonprofit organizations like the Local Government Institute of Wisconsin, Northwest Michigan Council of Governments, Carl Vinson Institute at the University of Georgia, and the Ohio Commission on Local Government Reform and Collaboration—make available a wealth of information and a virtual “how to” toolbox or library of guides and instructions via reports, case studies, best cases, webinars, conferences, workshops, and so on, to walk a local government through the process of planning for, designing, executing, and monitoring collaborative efforts. If this is not incentive enough, some state governments are actively pushing local governments to become more proactive in both the consideration of and participation in collaborative service delivery efforts (e.g., Franzel, Newfarmer, and Stenberg 2013).

Without question, the fiscal stress and strain caused by the great recession appears to have been at least partly responsible for an upswing in interest in local government collaboration. On one hand, local government officials were faced with sharply reduced revenues (but especially property tax money and state aid), aging infrastructure, mounting federally and state-mandated service responsibilities, escalating pension fund obligations, and a declining ability to compete globally for jobs. On the other hand, unhappy citizens were in no mood for higher taxes, fees, and assessments while also unwilling to accept a diminution in the quality and level of services. Yet, local governments may face the daunting task of convincing the public that they can no longer expect or afford the level and quality of services to which they have been accustomed. Simply put, local governments are operating in “uncharted waters,” and it is reasonable to speculate that the way in which local governments will go about the business of providing services in the future, out of necessity, will differ markedly from the way that they have done in the past.

Given this history and context, the purpose of this special issue on local government collaboration is to examine the purported value of local government collaboration in bringing about some of benefits listed previously, as well as look at a range of pertinent issues (drawbacks, challenges, tradeoffs, organizational culture, and hidden costs and implications) associated with collaboration, generally, and with a variety of collaborative endeavors, specifically. The authors of the five articles in this special issue examine different aspects of this broad topic.

Hilvert and Swindell, while reminding us that local government managers continue to confront a variety of challenges, contend that these managers are simultaneously presented with the exciting opportunity to experiment with new and innovative ways to achieve high quality and less expensive service delivery in their communities. They point to many examples of these type innovative efforts that have evolved out of various examples of collaboration by the local governments with private, nonprofit, or other public entities. Furthermore, the authors provide a perspective to highlight important factors local officials should carefully keep in mind when deciding which services might benefit from such collaborations, as well as which form of collaboration might have the greatest potential to assist a community realize its goals.

The authors of the second article (Zeemering and Delabbio) build on earlier studies which suggest that county governments—possessing linking and coordinating capabilities as well as constitutional and statutory authority—are well positioned to exercise leadership in the development of interlocal cooperation. With the assistance of the theories of public entrepreneurship and institutional collective action and a survey of county leaders in five states, Zeemering and Delabbio assist us in better understanding the circumstances and situations under which county government leaders are more likely to pursue new interlocal agreements or shared service delivery projects. More specifically, their study discovers distinct patterns of support for preparing for interlocal cooperation inside the county and reaching out to other local governments. Their study also presents additional insight into two other factors that affect county managers’ decisions to pursue cooperative arrangement: managers’ tolerance for entrepreneurship and willingness to take risks.

In the third article, Carr and Hawkins sensitize us to three transaction risks that local government officials must weight when considering whether or not to enter into collaborative service delivery arrangements—coordination, division, and defection. Drawing on the previous scholarly literature and the findings from applied research studies, they analyze the usefulness of three strategies that local government officials have used to manage these risks. One strategy that has received a lot of attention is the use adaptive and restrictive contracts to reduce the risks from service characteristics. A second strategy is to alter or modify various combinations of institutional arrangements in an effort to the risks of collaborative service provision. Finally, it appears that the existence of social networks of administrators and elected officials may be instrumental in helping to mitigate the risks associated with collaboration in service provision.

In their article, Blair and Janousek examine longitudinally the administrative networks and mutual organizations that comprise the collaborative mechanisms of municipalities in the state of Nebraska. Their findings suggest that, over time, the nature and use of interlocal cooperation mechanisms have shifted toward the more informal and general varieties. Their findings also indicated that the variety and functions of mechanisms or tools being employed in intergovernmental collaboration efforts exemplify the situational circumstances being addressed, the sort of public problems being confronted by local governments, and the nature and management of cooperation that is being implemented. The authors also note that, within the scope of formality and specificity, other issues require consideration: how have collaborative mechanisms been modified to meet the needs of cooperating entities? How do institutional context and organizational culture impact the use of collaborative mechanisms? Are other subcategories or new forms of collaborative mechanisms emerging? In short, they stress that collaborative mechanisms represent both the instrument and the framework for cooperative relationships, and a better understanding of the characteristics and applications of these linkages may offer practical improvements in the public administration of the local government collaboration process.

The last article by MacIndoe uses data drawn from a survey of nonprofit executive directors in Boston to address the following question: which factors influence the propensity for and intensity of nonprofit-local government collaborations? Her findings indicate that the likelihood of collaboration (or propensity) is influenced by resource dependence on government and foundation funding, reduced transaction costs, and perceived competition with other nonprofits. Furthermore, the results of her study suggest that the strength (or intensity) of nonprofit-local government relationships is positively associated with nonprofit capacity, resource diversification, factors associated with reduced transaction costs, and participation in a nonprofit membership association. As might be expected, these findings should have important implications for government practitioners and nonprofit leaders who seek to foster stronger collaborations.

While each of the articles in this Special Issue contributes to what we already know about local government collaborative efforts and helps to foster a healthy, ongoing dialogue among practitioners and between scholars and practitioners, there is much more that we need to know. For instance, it would be helpful to know more about collaboration among local and regional jurisdictions in other countries, as well as hone in on a more precise recipe for successful collaborative efforts in the United States. Moreover, a myriad of empirical questions await answers and thus provide a challenging and inviting research agenda for those who conduct research in this important and under-researched area.